Barriers to Employment Among People with Disabilities in Trinidad and Tobago

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for providing me with the opportunity to review your manuscript. It represents a new empirical contribution in that it explores the experiences of people with disabilities PwD in a geographical context underrepresented in disability-focused research. I also applaud your efforts to draw on data from multiple perspectives. There is potential here to contribute to wider discussions about how disability is conceptualised and responded to in specific ways by particular actors, and potentially, in this specific place.

My main concern about the paper is that it does not adequately draw on any theoretical frameworks, either in terms of the topic or the methodology. As a result, it is difficult to see what the paper’s central contribution is – I’m not convinced that it is enough to get findings disability scholars would anticipate, with the only 'new' element of the study being that it has been conducted in a new location. The barriers to paid employment replicate similar data generated globally, and there is little reflection on why or how the location of Trinidad and Tobago extends what we already know about unequal access to education and employment for PwD.

I think it is possible to address this critique, but that it might require revisiting the data and a substantial rewrite of the manuscript. There is an opportunity here to extend/challenge contemporary models of disability (especially as they are often critiqued for being anglo-centric) to better accommodate the experiences of PwD in T&T. It would require the authors reflecting on what makes the context particularly interesting – is it the way that PwD are/not supported legislatively, is it the way the work and society is organised in T&T, are there historical or cultural factors that are important in these contexts (colonialism/politics)?

Abstract and introduction

I’m not convinced that it is appropriate to present results in percentages when there are so few participants – describing it proportionally might be more effective? i.e. ‘over a third’, ‘less than half’…etc.

The table and figure used in the introduction are unnecessary and do not contribute anything to the section. I suggest removing them and using the space to add more detail on T&T and why it offers a good location to better understand the employment experiences of PwD.

Methods

This section would benefit from additional detail (where was favourable ethical opinion sought?), how were the data types synthesised within the analysis?

I think it might be clearer to provide dates (maybe how many months) across 2020 earlier in the paper rather than referring to is as ‘the COVID-19 period’. It might also benefit from a couple of sentences explaining what it meant for the project to be conducting empirical research at this time.

Further, it says in the method that four qualitative interviews were conducted and transcribed per day. It would be helpful to know how many people were conducting the interviews and whether a transcription service was used.

Results

I’m not sure that the inclusion of participants’ individual diagnoses is necessary – it doesn’t develop the argument – perhaps consider using umbrella terms such as ‘mobility impairment’ or ‘musculoskeletal condition’. It would be helpful if the qualitative data were more clearly attributed to specific participants.

The presentation of the qualitative analysis is very descriptive, with very little explanation of the data and some of the interesting information seems to be skipped over rather than engaged with in detail. The presentation is also at odds with the analysis method outlined which involves thematic analysis. The results sections are not thematic, they are descriptive. I would recommend either altering the methods to more accurately describe the analysis and subsequent presentation or consider rewriting the results section thematically.

This section might benefit from being restructured to follow more the more standard format of quant data, followed by qual, rather than presenting them in their current order. The analysis does not seem to be synthesised and so the introduction of quant data and figures in the middle of descriptive qual data presentation is quite jarring.

I think the effort to include all the study data has led to a paper that is too crowded to allow meaningful analysis. It might be worth dividing into two papers to enable a more appropriate level of depth?

Discussion and conclusion

This section offers a good summary of the findings, but as outlined above, doesn’t appear to add to our understanding of the employment of disabled people. It appears to largely replicate what is already known. This could be addressed by engaging more with T&T-specific aspects of the study, or drawing on a stronger framework.

Other suggestions:

The whole paper would benefit from a thorough proofread - there are quite a few sentences that do not quite make sense or use comparative terms without description the comparison (i.e ‘earn a lesser income’ - less than what/who?)

Possibly swap 'states' in the first sentence of the introduction for 'is to ensure'

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The proof would benefit from a thorough proofread as there are several sentences throughout which don't quite make sense grammatically - including the first sentence of the introduction. There are several instances of what I think is the incorrect use of past tense and the word 'the' - e.g. the sentence 'These findings corresponded with the previous researchers [ref]' - which I think is meant to say 'These findings correspond with previous research'

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remove the paragraph on page 4 that talks about children with disabilities. The focus so far ahs been on the labour market, so this paragraph distracts the reader.

The stats on T&T are clearly displayed and are interesting. To enhance this point make sure you highlight any features that make T&T distinct from other Caribbean countries in relation to PwD.

More attention should be paid to the labour market barriers that cause such contrast in the statistics of employment rates. Also reflect on why those with different disabilities have differing employment rates.

A breakdown of the sample’s impairment types would be useful.

You mention a participant on page 10 whose situation is exacerbated by her single parent status. Relate this point and the earlier point about the gender disparity in the statistics to the debates on intersectionality.

The findings relating to the employer attitudes reflects the academic literature on stigma, yet this is absent from the paper, you should draw on this literature to enhance the theoretical contribution.

I wish you all the best with this important work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review a revised copy of your paper. It’s clear that you have engaged with some of the concerns I raised in my report. I still have concerns about the paper even in its revised state.

I think there are several really helpful additions, thought I think I did not communicate some of my concerns effectively. For example, I was seeking more of a rationale for why T&T, what the location of the study allows you to add or develop theoretically with the paper, rather than more information about the region and its labour market.

This addition, along with many other word-heavy additions make the paper feel too long and laborious to get through. My original suggestions were provided in the hope that they would support efforts to streamline and focus the paper, rather than contribute to unwieldiness.

I was pleased to see the addition of some information on three models of disability, but they are at odds with your opening definition being from the UN convention, which does not draw on any of these models?

Though you acknowledge how the models are largely anglo-centric/focused in the global north and need to be altered for use in T&T – this should be developed to enhance and clarify the contribution and quality of the paper.

Introduction:

This section would benefit from a rewrite to more clearly locate your study in the wider literature and more clearly articulate a rationale for the study.

The detail you have provided on the T&T context and labour market is interesting but does not contribute to the overall narrative of the paper. It does not speak to the theoretical framework you suggest. I would strongly recommend rewriting so that it builds an argument and clearly exposes the gap in knowledge that your study fills.

You identify appropriate theories of disability, but do not discuss how they relate to each other or your study. I would consider focusing on the model which has the most explanatory potential for your findings, and then developing that.

Methods:

Could you please provide further detail about the ways in which your data collection is participatory?

Results:

This section is still very descriptive and does not seem informed by the theories that you introduce in the background.

I think there is a mistaken use of the word ‘prevalence’ in the heading? – as you don’t appear to discuss the frequency/commonness of unemployment in statistical terms. Perhaps ‘experiences of exclusion’ might be more appropriate?

Discussion:

The links between the findings and the theories you outline seem tacked on. They are not presented as core explanatory theories, and at times I would argue that they are misrepresented

Conclusion:

This section is well written, though I feel evidences the disjointed nature of the overall paper, in that you mention the separate elements of the paper, but they do not seem to converge into any kind of core argument.

Overall, I think this paper would benefit from a full rewrite to streamline the content, focus your narrative and more clearly articulate your contribution.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a selection of small grammatical errors that might benefit from further proof reading. However, they are only superficial and do not undermine the meaning of any individual sentences. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking the time and effort to improve the paper. I would like to see more detail on stigma as it comes through strongly in the findings. The few references to it in the models of disability do not do the findings justice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper again.

You have clearly engaged with suggested revisions and the paper is much improved.

The literature review/background is helpful, though now appears to include some content that should be in the methods section? This is a helpful addition - but I would suggest moving it.

My understanding is that we disagree on whether the UNCRPD definition of disability is in alignment with the social, EE or affirmation model of disability - which is a joy of academic debate, so will leave any decisions relating to this to the editors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf